Recommended Posts

James Cousins, from Sittingbourne in Kent, lost his job two years ago as an IT project manager with a financial firm in the City.

In and out of work since then, he has now been completely unemployed for eight months.

As a result he has fallen Â£7,000 behind with the repayments on his Â£200,000 mortgage with the now nationalised Bradford & Bingley.

Official guidelines are supposed to mean that lenders try other ways of getting their money back before moving to repossession and several government rescue schemes have been put in place to help people who are in arrears.

But, according to James, trying to make sure he can stay in his home has been a frustrating experience.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

So you think the Government (tax payer) should pay off your Â£200,000 mortgage?!

Am I being harsh?

I have bog all sympathy for someone on a IO mortgage, meself. Just asking for trouble. The lender does seem to have moved into repo pretty sharpish though, but given its an IO perhaps this is not surprising. If he cannot pay IO, seems unlikely he was/is putting anything toward repayment. Based his sums on HPI, and got caught out.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

whilst i've never understood the IO mortage route (seems like madness to me) the guy was clearly gainfully employed in a good job prior to the recession and may well have been investing elsewhere to pay off the capital.

not everyone who buys a house and gets caught out deserves hauling over hot coals....

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

He is only 8 months behind, others I know of are nearly 12 months behind and have just had letters but no action, so this seems quick. Is this not what QE is for - to put off these events until after the election?

Shush! You'll ruin the careful grooming of the masses going on in the above article!

It was several months before James landed a contract with Lloyds TSB, during which he ran up arrears on the Â£195,000 mortgage he has on his home in Sittingbourne, Kent, where he lives with his wife, Beverley, 48.

James paid his mortgage and started clearing the arrears at Â£100 a month, but the Lloyds contract ended last November and the only work James has been able to find since is driving a minicab, a job he took out of desperation earlier this year. Beverley also lost her job, though she has recently found work in a supermarket.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

whilst i've never understood the IO mortage route (seems like madness to me) the guy was clearly gainfully employed in a good job prior to the recession and may well have been investing elsewhere to pay off the capital.

not everyone who buys a house and gets caught out deserves hauling over hot coals....

you are missing the point. in an equtable society (that is, one that is based on freedom to make your own mistakes) then it is immaterial. he took the risk of purchasing a home and he, and his creditor, should bear the responsibility if their business with each other goes pear shaped.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

It was several months before James landed a contract with Lloyds TSB, during which he ran up arrears on the Â£195,000 mortgage he has on his home in Sittingbourne, Kent, where he lives with his wife, Beverley, 48.

James paid his mortgage and started clearing the arrears at Â£100 a month, but the Lloyds contract ended last November and the only work James has been able to find since is driving a minicab, a job he took out of desperation earlier this year. Beverley also lost her job, though she has recently found work in a supermarket.

So there we have it. Short Term IT Contracts and the Bank of Muppet Land gave him a mortgage.

Also doesn't have any equity in his house - hence the bank going after him. What claim on it does he really have? He is essentially a renter, as others have pointed out. Unfortunate, but there you have it. He took a risky punt and lost.

Link to post

Share on other sites

you are missing the point. in an equtable society (that is, one that is based on freedom to make your own mistakes) then it is immaterial. he took the risk of purchasing a home and he, and his creditor, should bear the responsibility if their business with each other goes pear shaped.

indeed, our leaders are demonstrating this by example with their handling of the bankers.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

you are missing the point. in an equtable society (that is, one that is based on freedom to make your own mistakes) then it is immaterial. he took the risk of purchasing a home and he, and his creditor, should bear the responsibility if their business with each other goes pear shaped.

Not really.

The bank merely created the debt, and so risked very little. An equitable or fair society might want to rid itself of fractional reserve banking. He took the risk because he likely felt he had no choice. I have every sympathy for the many thousands that have been conned into their current situation.

This is the fault of the banks alone. It is they that lent money they never had.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The bank merely created the debt, and so risked very little. An equitable or fair society might want to rid itself of fractional reserve banking. He took the risk because he likely felt he had no choice. I have every sympathy for the many thousands that have been conned into their current situation.

This is the fault of the banks alone. It is they that lent money they never had.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Also doesn't have any equity in his house - hence the bank going after him. What claim on it does he really have? He is essentially a renter, as others have pointed out. Unfortunate, but there you have it. He took a risky punt and lost.

this guy is 41, his missus is pushing 50 - what the hell have they been doing for the last 25 years not to have anything - either there is more to this than they are saying or they are a right pair of planks.